That would be awesome if it were true, but with our cyclical fractional reserve economic system, a dollar saved in the bank is actually capable of being loaned against 20 or 30-fold, making the power of the deposit appear much higher, but actually be a much smaller percentage of the whole economic machine.
In reality, we wouldn't have as many rich people without this fractional reserve system, but we also would have a much more stable economy that wasn't subject to massive economic swings and downturns.
The fact that the last four years have been the lowest taxed since the Spanish-American war makes them an aberration, not a rule.
The average top marginal tax rate over the last 100 years is about 55%. It spent several decades at 90% during the greatest boom in the middle class (1950-1970).
You do realize that during the Reagan years, top marginal rates were 50% and anyone making over $60k was paying at least 42%. When he took office, the top marginal rate was 70%.
When Bush Sr left office, the top marginal rate was 40%. In fact, Bush Sr raised that rate several times.
During the fastest period of economic growth in US history (from 1945-1983) the top marginal rate bounced between 90% and 70%.
The last 4 years were simply an aberration in the last century. This directly contradicts your assertion that a 44% top marginal rate is "simply too much".
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
You're spouting absolutely absurd crap in this post... completely absurd crap that's not supported by ANYONE. I've never seen ANY of these claims EVER written down before.
Seriously. Females for millions of years? I've never even HEARD of that. Never once even heard someone mention it... but you trot it out like it's some serious topic?
guess what? Uhm... I once met a Christian who... well he said that Noah had a brother named uhm... George... and he was a vampire and that's where all the vampires went. See... Christians are nutjobs. (this is what you sound like)
God, your friends are freaks, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything "rational" or anything involved with "science" and it has NOTHING to do with "athiesm".
"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table." Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen? He couldn't answer that.
I'm sorry, what?
That's not athiesm, that's.... uhm..... I dunno. Pokemon-ism.
There's seriously no scientific basis for that, which makes it (somewhat by default) a "faith" based issue.
Again, absolutely nothing to do with "athiesm" bu more with "you-have-weird-friends-ism"
Maybed if they loaded it up with DRM, put restrictive policies in place to block certain apps and prevented open source publication of published apps, they would have been more successful.
Sure, if someone si going around breaking noses...
but you do realize that TFA is referring to subtle emotional things.
"bullying" can be as simple as shoving your way in front off someone in line, or subtly demeaning them.
Being picked last (and goaded about it) is one of the most traumatic things that happened to several of my friends during their childhood.
Do you suggest remedial education for everyone who cuts in line, or makes a snarky comment about someone or points out another kid wearing ridiculous clothing. Like the kid in grade 8 who wore a neon pink sweat suit to school with no concept of how other people might view it?... because almost everyone in the school was snickering and commenting and the kid whent home crying- but does that mean 85% of the school gets stuck in "remedial education"?
Sure, you make a point (albiet a shallow one), but I think you're missing the nuance of the argument, as well as the study, in favor of a knee-jerk sociopolitical rant.
I seem to recall bullying in elementary school as this:
80% of the class picks on 2 or 3 kids because they have absolutely terrible social skills.
Perhaps your experience is different?
Sanctios against 80% of the class seems.... unrealistic and unlikely to do anything other than further remove those 2 or 3 kids from the social strata.
No, but that has very little to do with discrimination.
There have been many extended trials of pulling inner city kids out of their schools and inserting them elsewhere, even doing that throug htheir entire school career without interruption and the simple fact is that your home life has more to do with your educational success than anything.
A kid from the ghetto, who is stuck in a great school, has little more chance than a kid who stays at his own school. Study after study find the same result and they always puzzle why this is. It's simply cultural, in my opinion.
Certain sub-cultures placea VERY low value on education and hard work and it impacts entire populations of kids.
There is a "racial" income gap in the United States, but if you normalize for 8th grade standardized test scores, the "income gap" completely disappears for all groups except Asians (who have abnormally high income compared to test scores).
What I'm saying is that I agree with you, but the socioeconomic gaps in performance are much more complicated than simply "bad school" or "underfunded district".
Sure, you could arrest anyone who insults someone else...
But do you SERIOUSLY think (outside of the rags that qualify for media these days) that a majority of teachers ENJOY seeing kids bullied?
Perhaps the issue isn't so simple. did you even stop to consider that? This isn't some vast cabal organizaing a "we hate geeks" bully training course for teachers, nationwide. The "problem" is that there is NO SUCH THING as a definition of what is a "bully".
Obviously, bloody noses and broken jaws are handled harshly and by the legal system. But "you smell like cookie dough" can both be an insult and a compliment. In fact, one person may mean it as a compliment and another in the room will take it as an insult.
What you demand is "fix the problem", which is utterly impossible. It's a bit like saying "fix the problem of bad driving" or "fix the problem of self-absorbed politicians" or "fix the problem of agressive behavior amongst males".
It's a complex interaction between social values, evolutionary pack-animal instincts and our desire to AVOID living in a nanny-state where "zero tolerance" results in the majority of everyone being guilty of something during their life.
Personally, the concept of growing up in a utopia, wrapped in bubbles and surrounded by butterflies sounds awfully nice without examination, but then imaging completing school and moving on to defend your thesis or compete for a high-powered job, or have your life's work trashed by a review board or any number of things that ACTUALLY happen. Then consider how few coping skills someone who has never been subject to criticism would be...
It sounds all butterflies and candycanes when you say it, but when you implement it, it sounds like a cross between 1984 and "rain man".
Since all human interaction is analog and therefore can only be defined by a gradual slope, it is INHERENT that there must be a line and there would be a culstering of behavior RIGHT at that line.
just because you can only come up with examples that are obviously and clearly on one side or the other doesn't mean that there isn't stuff in the middle. This is the crux of the problem in inventing "zero tolerance" policies in regards to complex real-world situations.
There are too many lives of mediocrity that come directly from the fact that many people simply cannot comprehend a world of true competition, where there are actually finite resources that are competed for... that inevitably results in "winners" and "losers". Accepting a paradigm of "everything must be fair" is delightful in academic experiments and thought bubbles, but it doesn't translate to anything more real than grade school classroom banter and surely doesn't have a great deal of influence in a global sphere of severely constrained resources.
Most of Slashdot may only realize on a shallow intellectual level that our standard of living in the US is absolutely and completely unsustainable on a global scale. It is impossible for 7 billion people to afford a large apartment with multiple computers and high speed internet by driving 20 miles to a high-rise while sipping a latte and looking forward to a sushi dinner and a big screen TV.
What I'm getting at is a concrete example of how everyday things can be put in terms of "winners and losers" - I've stated this before and lots of people dispute it saying "there's no need for winners when there's plenty for everyone", but the realit is that there rarely is there are always winners and losers.
While it's noble, and important, to research ways of trying to get closer to that concept of "enough for everyone", there is also great benefit in learning what is required to be a winner, rather than a loser in that that battle for resources.
I would regard the problem of social dominance in a similar vein, though more abstract. Human nature dictates that there will probably always be dominance struggles and self-esteem issues amongst kids (aka bullying) - it simply won't go away. So, teaching your kid better coping mechanisms seems an awfully valid approach to an intractable problem.
I think that bullying is an offshoot of innate insticts to establish pack-dominance and pecking order.
Those things exist in almost all species. In general, people who act submissively will be subjected to dominant displays by pack alphas.
Sure, we can all say that "humans should be able to overcome this" but I regard it as a bit of "leftover" from evolutionary history. While it's worthwhile to address the behavior, it is probably most effectively addressed from both sides.
Simply saying "bully, bad!!" doesn't address the nuance of the situation, nor the multiple factors that contribute to it.
hmmm.. You do realize that the frequency band of wifi gear is actually very loose. In commercial installations, only the channels 1,6,11 are used because they are the only non-overlapping channels. A wifi signal steps all over channels 2-3 on either side of itself.
Thus, channel 11 pretty much squishes channel 12 and 13 (but much less so on 14).
In Japan, they use generally use 4 non-overlapping channels rather than 3 as in the US). Those often being 1,5,10,14.
Yes, I want a government owned network piped into my house without my permssion.
That would make me a happy taxpayer.
mmmmhmmmmm
I love you, government. I would marry you, if you were a woman (so as to fit within the proper constitutionally defined government definition of marriage as "one man and one woman"). But you don't so that would be wrong.
Forgive my transgressions oh, government and deliver me from evil.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be awesome if it were true, but with our cyclical fractional reserve economic system, a dollar saved in the bank is actually capable of being loaned against 20 or 30-fold, making the power of the deposit appear much higher, but actually be a much smaller percentage of the whole economic machine.
In reality, we wouldn't have as many rich people without this fractional reserve system, but we also would have a much more stable economy that wasn't subject to massive economic swings and downturns.
*shrugs*
Nobody is "killing" the upper class.
The fact that the last four years have been the lowest taxed since the Spanish-American war makes them an aberration, not a rule.
The average top marginal tax rate over the last 100 years is about 55%. It spent several decades at 90% during the greatest boom in the middle class (1950-1970).
Your argument is bunk and smells like turd.
You do realize that during the Reagan years, top marginal rates were 50% and anyone making over $60k was paying at least 42%. When he took office, the top marginal rate was 70%.
When Bush Sr left office, the top marginal rate was 40%. In fact, Bush Sr raised that rate several times.
During the fastest period of economic growth in US history (from 1945-1983) the top marginal rate bounced between 90% and 70%.
The last 4 years were simply an aberration in the last century. This directly contradicts your assertion that a 44% top marginal rate is "simply too much".
History begs to differ.
as you get closer to the equator, it gets better. Spain is competitive now.
You do know that the SOUTHERN TIP of Spain is at the same latitude as Virginia Beach, right?
North Carolina is closer to the equator than Spain. Barcelona is a fair bit north of New York City.
But yeah, other than that, not a bad post. :-)
Just like Russel's teapot.
Russel:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
You're a tool.
You're spouting absolutely absurd crap in this post... completely absurd crap that's not supported by ANYONE. I've never seen ANY of these claims EVER written down before.
Seriously. Females for millions of years? I've never even HEARD of that. Never once even heard someone mention it... but you trot it out like it's some serious topic?
guess what? Uhm... I once met a Christian who ... well he said that Noah had a brother named uhm... George... and he was a vampire and that's where all the vampires went. See... Christians are nutjobs. (this is what you sound like)
God, your friends are freaks, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything "rational" or anything involved with "science" and it has NOTHING to do with "athiesm".
WTF are you (and your friends) smoking?
Sheesh.
"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table." Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen? He couldn't answer that.
I'm sorry, what?
That's not athiesm, that's.... uhm..... I dunno. Pokemon-ism.
There's seriously no scientific basis for that, which makes it (somewhat by default) a "faith" based issue.
Again, absolutely nothing to do with "athiesm" bu more with "you-have-weird-friends-ism"
Maybed if they loaded it up with DRM, put restrictive policies in place to block certain apps and prevented open source publication of published apps, they would have been more successful.
Then again, maybe not.
Maybe freedom means some people fail.
While I sense this post is primarily founded in snarky sarcasm, I have to point out how profoundly insightful that phrase is.
Freedom means some people fail.
Alas, that is what is lost on so many....
I cannot do anything with my iPad
It's a feature, not a bug, and surely not AT&T's fault.
Sure, if someone si going around breaking noses...
but you do realize that TFA is referring to subtle emotional things.
"bullying" can be as simple as shoving your way in front off someone in line, or subtly demeaning them.
Being picked last (and goaded about it) is one of the most traumatic things that happened to several of my friends during their childhood.
Do you suggest remedial education for everyone who cuts in line, or makes a snarky comment about someone or points out another kid wearing ridiculous clothing. Like the kid in grade 8 who wore a neon pink sweat suit to school with no concept of how other people might view it? ... because almost everyone in the school was snickering and commenting and the kid whent home crying- but does that mean 85% of the school gets stuck in "remedial education"?
Sure, you make a point (albiet a shallow one), but I think you're missing the nuance of the argument, as well as the study, in favor of a knee-jerk sociopolitical rant.
Just my humble opinion
I seem to recall bullying in elementary school as this:
80% of the class picks on 2 or 3 kids because they have absolutely terrible social skills.
Perhaps your experience is different?
Sanctios against 80% of the class seems.... unrealistic and unlikely to do anything other than further remove those 2 or 3 kids from the social strata.
No, but that has very little to do with discrimination.
There have been many extended trials of pulling inner city kids out of their schools and inserting them elsewhere, even doing that throug htheir entire school career without interruption and the simple fact is that your home life has more to do with your educational success than anything.
A kid from the ghetto, who is stuck in a great school, has little more chance than a kid who stays at his own school. Study after study find the same result and they always puzzle why this is. It's simply cultural, in my opinion.
Certain sub-cultures placea VERY low value on education and hard work and it impacts entire populations of kids.
There is a "racial" income gap in the United States, but if you normalize for 8th grade standardized test scores, the "income gap" completely disappears for all groups except Asians (who have abnormally high income compared to test scores).
What I'm saying is that I agree with you, but the socioeconomic gaps in performance are much more complicated than simply "bad school" or "underfunded district".
Maybe he was taught by his parents that gays are scum.
I find that's pretty common. I would wager that the bully's parents probably encouraged him and suggested his behavior was justified.
Kids don't hate gays by default, it's a cultural thing -- that i'm sure of.
You've obviously never been a teacher.
Sure, you could arrest anyone who insults someone else...
But do you SERIOUSLY think (outside of the rags that qualify for media these days) that a majority of teachers ENJOY seeing kids bullied?
Perhaps the issue isn't so simple. did you even stop to consider that? This isn't some vast cabal organizaing a "we hate geeks" bully training course for teachers, nationwide. The "problem" is that there is NO SUCH THING as a definition of what is a "bully".
Obviously, bloody noses and broken jaws are handled harshly and by the legal system. But "you smell like cookie dough" can both be an insult and a compliment. In fact, one person may mean it as a compliment and another in the room will take it as an insult.
What you demand is "fix the problem", which is utterly impossible. It's a bit like saying "fix the problem of bad driving" or "fix the problem of self-absorbed politicians" or "fix the problem of agressive behavior amongst males".
It's a complex interaction between social values, evolutionary pack-animal instincts and our desire to AVOID living in a nanny-state where "zero tolerance" results in the majority of everyone being guilty of something during their life.
Personally, the concept of growing up in a utopia, wrapped in bubbles and surrounded by butterflies sounds awfully nice without examination, but then imaging completing school and moving on to defend your thesis or compete for a high-powered job, or have your life's work trashed by a review board or any number of things that ACTUALLY happen. Then consider how few coping skills someone who has never been subject to criticism would be...
It sounds all butterflies and candycanes when you say it, but when you implement it, it sounds like a cross between 1984 and "rain man".
Since all human interaction is analog and therefore can only be defined by a gradual slope, it is INHERENT that there must be a line and there would be a culstering of behavior RIGHT at that line.
just because you can only come up with examples that are obviously and clearly on one side or the other doesn't mean that there isn't stuff in the middle. This is the crux of the problem in inventing "zero tolerance" policies in regards to complex real-world situations.
I'm not a fan of "zero tolerance" FWIW.
And the simple lesson here is:
bullying tends to be human nature, not some isolated behavior of socially ignorant cretens.
No, pretending that we can "fix the world with fairy dust" only keeps the cycle going.
Giving victims real coping skills and diversionary tactics actually helps victims.
Where is the problem here?
I gotta say "AMEN" to that.
There are too many lives of mediocrity that come directly from the fact that many people simply cannot comprehend a world of true competition, where there are actually finite resources that are competed for... that inevitably results in "winners" and "losers". Accepting a paradigm of "everything must be fair" is delightful in academic experiments and thought bubbles, but it doesn't translate to anything more real than grade school classroom banter and surely doesn't have a great deal of influence in a global sphere of severely constrained resources.
Most of Slashdot may only realize on a shallow intellectual level that our standard of living in the US is absolutely and completely unsustainable on a global scale. It is impossible for 7 billion people to afford a large apartment with multiple computers and high speed internet by driving 20 miles to a high-rise while sipping a latte and looking forward to a sushi dinner and a big screen TV.
What I'm getting at is a concrete example of how everyday things can be put in terms of "winners and losers" - I've stated this before and lots of people dispute it saying "there's no need for winners when there's plenty for everyone", but the realit is that there rarely is there are always winners and losers.
While it's noble, and important, to research ways of trying to get closer to that concept of "enough for everyone", there is also great benefit in learning what is required to be a winner, rather than a loser in that that battle for resources.
I would regard the problem of social dominance in a similar vein, though more abstract. Human nature dictates that there will probably always be dominance struggles and self-esteem issues amongst kids (aka bullying) - it simply won't go away. So, teaching your kid better coping mechanisms seems an awfully valid approach to an intractable problem.
I think you just insinuated that executing the bullies is the proper solution.
Or perhaps it was just extraordinarily lazy logic.
Either way, point not made. :-)
I think that bullying is an offshoot of innate insticts to establish pack-dominance and pecking order.
Those things exist in almost all species. In general, people who act submissively will be subjected to dominant displays by pack alphas.
Sure, we can all say that "humans should be able to overcome this" but I regard it as a bit of "leftover" from evolutionary history. While it's worthwhile to address the behavior, it is probably most effectively addressed from both sides.
Simply saying "bully, bad!!" doesn't address the nuance of the situation, nor the multiple factors that contribute to it.
The answer is:
Windows! :-)
Uhm. 5.2ghz is unregulated, just like 2.4ghz.
Fail
hmmm.. You do realize that the frequency band of wifi gear is actually very loose. In commercial installations, only the channels 1,6,11 are used because they are the only non-overlapping channels. A wifi signal steps all over channels 2-3 on either side of itself.
Thus, channel 11 pretty much squishes channel 12 and 13 (but much less so on 14).
In Japan, they use generally use 4 non-overlapping channels rather than 3 as in the US). Those often being 1,5,10,14.
Yes, I want a government owned network piped into my house without my permssion.
That would make me a happy taxpayer.
mmmmhmmmmm
I love you, government. I would marry you, if you were a woman (so as to fit within the proper constitutionally defined government definition of marriage as "one man and one woman"). But you don't so that would be wrong.
Forgive my transgressions oh, government and deliver me from evil.
blah blah blah.